Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX

[Martin Greywolf]

For me, it's too basic, there isn't any new information or analysis there, it just compiles what we've already known for a few decades into sometimes interesting points of view.

Problem is, much like Lindybeige, he doesn't clearly say what are facts and what is just his opinion and makes some very... facepalm inducing mistakes when speaking about topics outside of his area of expertise.

One of those was that, apparently, soldiers in musket warfare era had high starched collars because aristocracy believed they needed to see less from their peripheral vision. This is so, so overwhelmingly stupid - mostly because any even cursory glance at any of these uniforms shows that the collar limits bugger all.

A less silly but more revealing mistake was in the originally linked series, claiming that while medieval mines were technically free of taxes, the owner wast he king who took his cut, and so they were effectively still taxed. This is not how medieval taxation works and is a result of surface level reading of the privileges without really understanding the context.

So, my verdict is, that blog is good for very general or Greco-Roman specific topics, but not that great for details in other areas.

[Gnoman]

I haven't read everything on there, but that sort of thing usually happens when he makes an off-the-cuff or side comment, such as the "early modern" stuff in his Game Of Thrones teardown. When he's focused on something, he usually seems to put in the research to avoid that.

[fusilier]

Bret Devereaux has a blog called A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry where he takes a historian's look (He is an ancient historian who currently teaches as a Teaching Assistant Professor in the Department of History at NC State U) at many pop-culture views of history, or just at elements if ancient and medieval history that are misunderstood. He recently did a 4-part series (in six parts) at pre-modern iron and steel production. I cannot recommend his blog highly enough.

Pre-modern Iron and Steel Production starts at this post. Today's post is starting a series on textile production.

DrewID

Thanks for reminding of that blog, I just read his series on the Universal Warrior. That was a very good read.

[fusilier]

One of those was that, apparently, soldiers in musket warfare era had high starched collars because aristocracy believed they needed to see less from their peripheral vision. This is so, so overwhelmingly stupid - mostly because any even cursory glance at any of these uniforms shows that the collar limits bugger all.

Leather neck stocks were definitely a thing, well into the mid-19th century. And I can tell you from personal experience that they do inhibit turning your head somewhat! (You have to kind of lift your chin to turn your head to the side . . . it's not as bad as a neck brace -- I imagine -- but it does encourage you to keep your head facing straight ahead).

I'm not sure about starched collars. 16th/17th century soldiers are often depicted wearing ruffs, and large (stiff looking) falling collars. I haven't found those to be too restrictive, but I don't starch mine. 18th century soldiers are shown with high neck collars on their shirts, and cloth neck stocks wrapped around their necks.

It wasn't necessarily the coat's collar that would be particularly particularly restrictive -- although in the early 19th century they could be quite tall -- instead it was the neck stock, or (in an earlier period) detached shirt collar.

[Mike_G]

One of my HEMA buddies and I (both medics, both vaccinated, so we can be in melee range) got ahold of two Black Fencer musket and bayonet trainers and took them out to play.

https://southcoastswords.com/product...kfencer-musket

This is not a paid endorsement, I just wanted to show the weapon in question.

My God, the bayonet is really really tough to beat. We did bayonet vs bayonet (obviously even), then vs saber, broadsword, spadroon, rapier and longsword (the last two are kinda iffy historically, but the others all did share the same battlefields)

The bayonet was hands down the better choice. It surprised both of us just how much of an advantage it was. Obviously it has a reach advantage, but the thrust is really fast, very accurate, and hard to parry. The extra mass of the musket, plus the fact that the bayonet fighter has both hands on it makes it tough to parry or beat aside unless you catch it very much on the forte of your blade, and I mean like "right up against the guard" forte. Of all the weapons, the longsword did best, since it had a comparable reach, plus the leverage of two hands. I'd still choose a bayonet though, if my life depended on it.

The only tactic that seems to work well is to parry the initial thrust then grab the barrel of the musket, but that's not as easy as it sounds. Cutting at the forward hand kind of works, but it's very easy for the bayonet fighter to thrust into your attack and impale you when you go for that cut.

I imagine a shield, like a Scottish targe or a Zulu shield might be effective if you catch the thrust and control the weapon while you make your attack with your broadsword or knobkerrie or iklwa.

Anyway, I just thought it was very interesting and wanted to share.

[KineticDiplomat]

That is pretty interesting, especially as officers kept carrying swords for a good long bit. Granted those were nothing more than prestigious edged swagger sticks after a point, but they kept using them as real weapons for a good chunk of the black powder era.

Do you think that you guys were using any rules or restrictions that gave the bayonet an ahistorical edge?

As a corollary, do you think the bayonet would have been as advantageous compared to a sword in general battlefield work as opposed to one on one in a ring, so to speak?

Both of those are non-rhetorical questions by the by.

[fusilier]

One of my HEMA buddies and I (both medics, both vaccinated, so we can be in melee range) got ahold of two Black Fencer musket and bayonet trainers and took them out to play.

. . .

The only tactic that seems to work well is to parry the initial thrust then grab the barrel of the musket, but that's not as easy as it sounds. Cutting at the forward hand kind of works, but it's very easy for the bayonet fighter to thrust into your attack and impale you when you go for that cut.

I've seen manuals from the 1850s, showing that tactic of a swordsman parrying then grabbing the muzzle of the musket.

Glad you had fun! Haven't had a chance to use something like this myself, but I know someone who was looking into having something similar made. (Doing bayonet v. bayonet drills with real bayonets and antique muskets . . . you have to take things slow, and just kind of go through the motions).

[fusilier]

That is pretty interesting, especially as officers kept carrying swords for a good long bit. Granted those were nothing more than prestigious edged swagger sticks after a point, but they kept using them as real weapons for a good chunk of the black powder era.

Do you think that you guys were using any rules or restrictions that gave the bayonet an ahistorical edge?

As a corollary, do you think the bayonet would have been as advantageous compared to a sword in general battlefield work as opposed to one on one in a ring, so to speak?

Both of those are non-rhetorical questions by the by.

While I haven't tried it myself, I will point out that the "fake" musket and bayonet, weigh about half as much as the real thing. I'm speculating here, but I imagine that would probably make the fake musket/bayonet a little faster in things like parrying and going from one position to another (i.e going from a parry to an attack). On the other hand, the lighter weight might make it easier for a swordsman to parry an attack. Mike_G, what are your thoughts?

I've found, over the years, that my upper body strength has improved, and makes it a little easier to throw around real muskets in these drills. But the younger reenactors (and I remember when I was one), their arms wear out quickly -- they are hefty things, and some of the positions are kind of stressful.

I have missed bayonet drill -- the ceilings are too low in my apartment for me to really practice. ;-)

[Mike_G]

That is pretty interesting, especially as officers kept carrying swords for a good long bit. Granted those were nothing more than prestigious edged swagger sticks after a point, but they kept using them as real weapons for a good chunk of the black powder era.

Do you think that you guys were using any rules or restrictions that gave the bayonet an ahistorical edge?

As a corollary, do you think the bayonet would have been as advantageous compared to a sword in general battlefield work as opposed to one on one in a ring, so to speak?

Both of those are non-rhetorical questions by the by.

My guess for officers using swords is that a sword is a sidearm. They didn't want officers fighting, they wanted them commanding. Once the fight gets to melee, you need to be able to defend yourself, so a sword is a good weapon to give them. Keeps them from turning into a rifleman when they should be a leader, but gives them some ability to fend off an enemy at close quarters. It's also easier to carry a sword and do other things. A musket is big and heavy and if you have one, that's more or less what you are using. You can have a different primary job and still carry a sword. I think of a sword in the past like a pistol today. A handy backup weapon, easy to wear for every day, and useful for self defense, but nobody's primary battle weapon.

We're not using any rules at all, other than "don't hurt one another so badly we can't go back to work next week." We're wearing a lot of padding and using blunt sparring weapons, so we're not pulling many punches. Grabbing the musket is allowed, light grappling and so on.

I think the bayonet would be even better in a battle. If you have fifty of your friends in a line on either side of you, bayonets would be easier to use without tangling one another up than swords.

I imagine this is why spears were so common for so long. Same principle. Spears would probably be ever deadlier in melee, but having a musket or rifle with a bayonet combines the pike and shot roles and lets every man in the regiment do double duty

[Mike_G]

While I haven't tried it myself, I will point out that the "fake" musket and bayonet, weigh about half as much as the real thing. I'm speculating here, but I imagine that would probably make the fake musket/bayonet a little faster in things like parrying and going from one position to another (i.e going from a parry to an attack). On the other hand, the lighter weight might make it easier for a swordsman to parry an attack. Mike_G, what are your thoughts?

I agree on both counts. But I don't think the extra weight will slow a thrust down all that much, and if you parry with the musket presented forward, you don't have to move it very far to cover your line, so I don't think it will suffer all that much. If you swing the musket, I can see having a hard time recovering. We learned a bayonet slash in the Marines, but that was with a shorter, lighter rifle, so the recovery wasn't so bad. Not really something you can do with the triangular socket bayonet. And not that they expected us to use the bayonet in combat as much as the average Redcoat with a Brown Bess.

The fact that even a 5 pound sparring musket is really difficult to beat or parry with a two pound sword will probably mean stopping a ten pound musket will be like trying to parry a freight train.

I've found, over the years, that my upper body strength has improved, and makes it a little easier to throw around real muskets in these drills. But the younger reenactors (and I remember when I was one), their arms wear out quickly -- they are hefty things, and some of the positions are kind of stressful.

I have missed bayonet drill -- the ceilings are too low in my apartment for me to really practice. ;-)

I hear you. It's been a year since I have been able to go to fencing/SCA/HEMA club. I'm lucky that I have a sparring partner and we can fight in the back yard if the weather permits

[Martin Greywolf]

I imagine a shield, like a Scottish targe or a Zulu shield might be effective if you catch the thrust and control the weapon while you make your attack with your broadsword or knobkerrie or iklwa.

If you go against any competent shield fighter with spear of any kind, he will destroy you and feast on your tears. Then and again, once you have two lines of people and everyone is discouraged from moving in and you get into a poke-y poke-y fight, spears have the edge again.

It's just that, most HEMA people who are doing sabre or longsword for the most part are overthinking it and trying to make something work - there's not a lot of science to it, you just take that shield and keep pressing him, because he gets precisely one opportunity to stab you before that shield is blocking his hand too much.

That is pretty interesting, especially as officers kept carrying swords for a good long bit. Granted those were nothing more than prestigious edged swagger sticks after a point, but they kept using them as real weapons for a good chunk of the black powder era.

Oh no, they got used quite a lot. You forget that while these people had gunpowder, their opponents very often didn't, or had little of it, and therefore were entirely too happy to engage, whether we're talking about Zulu, Little Big Horn or Sikh rebellions. Swords got used quite a lot there, and that lasted pretty much up to WW1 when large industrialized nations brought a massive amount of artillery to the field - hell, Matt Easton put up a video about how swords weren't discontinued in British army because they weren't effective (they were in trench raids), but because they identified the officers for any sniper paying attention.

That said, you do want your officer to command up until the situations gets so chaotic it is not possible, and that happens when the enemy gets close to you. And for that, sword is still not that good, but sword and several pistols/revolver/howdah pistol are pretty great, especially since bayonets tend to get stuck in bodies, sometimes even by bending.

I agree on both counts. But I don't think the extra weight will slow a thrust down all that much, and if you parry with the musket presented forward, you don't have to move it very far to cover your line, so I don't think it will suffer all that much. If you swing the musket, I can see having a hard time recovering.

Well, my experience is with spear, spear with heavier handle and a halberd, and it matters quite a bit. The thrust remains unaffected, but recovering it is a lot more challenging, especially if you're going against a weapon of similar reach. A lot will also depend on where a rifle would have center of mass, put it forward of your front hand (a la halberd) and you get to the point where parries with the tip become... kinda impossible to do against a spear.

A few historical quotes, taken from the ever-reliable Swordsmen of the British Empire.

Spoiler: Col. G. Fitzclarence, “Memoir,” Naval and Military Magazine, 1828

Show

“They [Asian warriors] are ever desirous of the closest combat, and are well satisfied to meet their enemy with the sword and dagger. This was ever the desire of the Eastern nations south of Tartary; and to this day, like the ancient Janissaries, the British sepoys would prefer the use of the sword (a heavy curved broadsword, a weapon of the most destructive nature in the hands of the natives) to the bayonet, and which, on several occasions, has been found more than a match for the latter. The Rohillas, in 1773, cut to pieces more than one battalion by rushing in upon them, putting aside the musket with one hand and using the sword with the other; while one of the assaults at Acre is celebrated from the French being overpowered by the Turks in the like manner.”

Spoiler: Lt. Col. Richard Scott, “Campaigns in India,” Naval and Military Magazine, 1828

Show

“The enemy [Rohillas] rushed on, sword in hand, and in many instances seized and turned aside the bayonets of our troops with one hand, whilst with the other they made most dexterous use of their broadswords.”

Spoiler: “The Ottoman Empire,” The Church of England Quarterly Review, 1854

Show

“The Janissaries had always proved formidable to their enemies by the wild impetuosity of their attack, which resembled that of the Highlanders. When they neared their enemies’ battalions, they poured in a destructive volley, and throwing down their muskets, attacked them with the scimitar in one hand and their favourite weapon, the formidable yataghan [or double-curved sword knife] in the other; and these often proved an overmatch for the bayonet, even in the hands of the most disciplined troops in Europe.”

Spoiler: Maj. Gen. David Stewart, Sketches of the Highlanders of Scotland, 1825

Show

“Sergeant John Macrae [of the 78th Highlanders], a young man about twenty-two years of age, but of great size and strength of arm, showed [in the Egyptian Expedition of 1807] that the broadsword, in a firm hand, is as good a weapon in close fighting as the bayonet. If the first push of the bayonet misses its aim or happens to be parried, it is not easy to recover the weapon and repeat the thrust when the enemy is bold enough to stand firm; but it is not so with the sword, which may be readily withdrawn from its blow, wielded with celerity, and directed to any part of the body, particularly to the head and arms, while its motions defend the person using it. Macrae killed six men, cutting them down with his broadsword (of the kind usually worn by sergeants of Highland corps), when at last he made a dash out of the ranks on a Turk, whom he cut down; but, as he was returning to the square, he was killed by a blow from behind, his head being nearly split in two by the stroke of a sabre.”

Spoiler: “Highland Battles and Highland Arms,” Celtic Magazine, 1877

Show

“The strength of the musketeer rests in his bullet, not his bayonet. The claymore was of precisely the length to enable its wielder successfully to encounter a bayoneteer, as it could always over-cut the bayonet when caught by the target; or even if the bayoneteer succeeded in transfixing his adversary, the length of the broadsword enabled the compliment to be returned.”

Spoiler: Diary of Colonel Bayly, 1896

Show

“Our soldiers were animated with a degree of fury beyond any I have ever known; and one of them plunged his bayonet with such force through the body of a Travancorean that it remained firmly fixed in the back bone, from which in his hurry he could not withdraw it; he therefore unfixed it, leaving the carcass in that state.”

So, the chief methods to defeat the bayonet are:

• extend your sword hand for maximum reach
• use a shield or an off hand weapon
• use... just an off hand - possibly wrap it in a bit of cloth a la cloak fencing, especially for sparring
• parry and grab
• parry and close - the preferable way to do this seems to be to parry upwards

And since Mike_G mentioned using the parry and grab method, I think I know where the problem lies. To borrow terminology from Fiore, if you exchange points with a bayonet, you can only grab, and the bayonet wielder will be able to recover quickly. But, if you break his point, the much higher weight of his musket will come into play and he will not have enough time to recover before you close.

The real question is, was the universally poor performance of bayonets in history a result of not that much training, or a feature of the weapons used? And honestly, I don't know how to call this one.

[Mike_G]

If you go against any competent shield fighter with spear of any kind, he will destroy you and feast on your tears. Then and again, once you have two lines of people and everyone is discouraged from moving in and you get into a poke-y poke-y fight, spears have the edge again.

It's just that, most HEMA people who are doing sabre or longsword for the most part are overthinking it and trying to make something work - there's not a lot of science to it, you just take that shield and keep pressing him, because he gets precisely one opportunity to stab you before that shield is blocking his hand too much.

Oh I fully expect shields to do very well. We just don;t have any shield to practice with, and I expected swords to do better than they did, so I wont commit.

But I do think I'd take a sword and targe over a bayonet.

Well, my experience is with spear, spear with heavier handle and a halberd, and it matters quite a bit. The thrust remains unaffected, but recovering it is a lot more challenging, especially if you're going against a weapon of similar reach. A lot will also depend on where a rifle would have center of mass, put it forward of your front hand (a la halberd) and you get to the point where parries with the tip become... kinda impossible to do against a spear.

The mass of a rifle is going to be toward the butt. The stock is wider there, often the stock doesn't go all the way to the muzzle and you have the whole lock and all that hardware pretty far back. the musket center of mass will almost always be between the hands, unless you are gripping it very far back. So yeah, it's heavier than a sword, but you have two hands on it, and the point of balance between them so it's not hard to thrust or recover.

I wouldn't swing it like an axe. That would take it far out of line and be hard to recover, but extend the point and lunge, then you can recover quite quickly, like a foil fencer.

And in any kind of attempted bind, the big heavy weapon with two hands will easily displace the light weapon with one hand on it.

A few historical quotes, taken from the ever-reliable Swordsmen of the British Empire.

Great anecdotes. Can't beat first hand accounts.

So, the chief methods to defeat the bayonet are:

• extend your sword hand for maximum reach
• use a shield or an off hand weapon
• use... just an off hand - possibly wrap it in a bit of cloth a la cloak fencing, especially for sparring
• parry and grab
• parry and close - the preferable way to do this seems to be to parry upwards

Tried all of these. The thing is, the thrust is quick, has lot of reach, and if it misses, it really isn't hard to draw back and thrust again. It just isn't. You can use the thing like a sewing machine needle, jabbing repeatedly from beyond the swordsman's reach until he misses a parry if you don't over extend.

I also think some of these might work one on one, but if you figure bayonets were used by formed troops, yeah, sure you can parry and try to close, and maybe the guy you parried can't stab you, but his buddy might.

And since Mike_G mentioned using the parry and grab method, I think I know where the problem lies. To borrow terminology from Fiore, if you exchange points with a bayonet, you can only grab, and the bayonet wielder will be able to recover quickly. But, if you break his point, the much higher weight of his musket will come into play and he will not have enough time to recover before you close.

The real question is, was the universally poor performance of bayonets in history a result of not that much training, or a feature of the weapons used? And honestly, I don't know how to call this one.

My guess is poor training and forgetting the drill in the heat of the moment. In a safe, friendly bout between two people who have sparred with one another quite a bit, the bayonet has a ton of advantages over the single sword. But if you are a green conscript facing a screaming Highlander or Zulu, you probably just panic and shove the point out and hope.

Which brings me to my other thought. Swords were generally used by people who spent a lot of time training in their use. Officers probably had been fencing since their youth, and likely practiced enough that it became instinctive. The common soldier with his Brown Bess and bayonet was probably not sent to fencing lessons by his family when he was young. He probably had some basic instruction from a sergeant who shouted commands like "Parry left! Thrust! Jesus Christ, Atkins, what the hell are you playing at?" for an afternoon.

So maybe the gentleman who has spent countless hours learning to use a sword can beat a man who has learned two parries and three attacks by the numbers and practiced for a day or so.

Seen here, the bayonet isn't easy to get past with a sword

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKbOj3i0rQ8&t=380s

And is harder to get past if you have a line of troops with the infernal things

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoc0CwpuqkM

[Max_Killjoy]

A lot of weapon vs weapon "which is better" discussions seem to ignore that little thing about the better fighter making a huge difference.

[fusilier]

The mass of a rifle is going to be toward the butt. The stock is wider there, often the stock doesn't go all the way to the muzzle and you have the whole lock and all that hardware pretty far back. the musket center of mass will almost always be between the hands, unless you are gripping it very far back. So yeah, it's heavier than a sword, but you have two hands on it, and the point of balance between them so it's not hard to thrust or recover.

The point of balance will either be between the two hands, or at the leading hand, for guard and some attacks. At the end of something like a lunge the point of balance will be in front of the hands, but the guard position is quickly regained. There are some attacks designed to be used close in, which would put the leading hand near the muzzle, and the rear hand close to the point of balance. [This is all from the manual that I'm most familiar with, from around 1852. There were many other manuals.]

I wouldn't swing it like an axe. That would take it far out of line and be hard to recover, but extend the point and lunge, then you can recover quite quickly, like a foil fencer.

The standard US manual of the Civil War was copied from a French manual. The only major difference (or so I've been told) is that the US version omitted "club muskets", which is basically swinging it like club overhead to strike with the butt. Without consulting the manual, I can only think of one swinging attack off the top of my head, and it's a low strike with the butt which was used to push an opponent away. Given the tactics used at the time, soldiers could easily end up in hand-to-hand and crushed together with little room to maneuver (although that's probably true for a very long stretch of history).

My guess is poor training and forgetting the drill in the heat of the moment. . . .

So maybe the gentleman who has spent countless hours learning to use a sword can beat a man who has learned two parries and three attacks by the numbers and practiced for a day or so.

This! From what I can tell bayonet training was often very rudimentary, and probably rarely practiced. I would not be surprised if many veterans had never received any training. The French during the 2nd Empire seem to have given a lot more attention to this. Some anecdotes from the Crimean War caused other powers to take notice of the French improvements in bayonet training, and I think that influenced the spread of more sophisticated bayonet drills and more time spent training. (I remember reading US inspectors-general reports from the late 1850s, and they were commenting on the levels of bayonet training among the infantry they saw at the various posts. The implication was that training was new).

Also to actually spar with bayonets was difficult. All sorts of special equipment was required which just wasn't part of the standard army budget. And the infantry was the largest arm. A soldier of the Civil War, may have been considered well trained with use of the bayonet, and probably had never done any real sparring. Cadets from military schools may have done such sparring, and an *exceptionally* well trained soldier, probably from a pre-war militia Zouave regiment, may have as well (and possibly some old regular enlistedmen).

After the Civil War, training improves, but now we are no longer in the musket era.

[Clistenes]

Bret Devereaux has a blog called A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry where he takes a historian's look (He is an ancient historian who currently teaches as a Teaching Assistant Professor in the Department of History at NC State U) at many pop-culture views of history, or just at elements if ancient and medieval history that are misunderstood. He recently did a 4-part series (in six parts) at pre-modern iron and steel production. I cannot recommend his blog highly enough.

Pre-modern Iron and Steel Production starts at this post. Today's post is starting a series on textile production.

DrewID

It's a very good blog, but I think he focuses a bit too much in Britain when he studies European warfare. He skips the Tercios, the Landsknecht and the Swiss when he studies Warriors vs Soldiers, and I think these three are very important, being transitional between warrior and soldier mentality...

[KineticDiplomat]

If I’m reading the above posts correctly, then it would appear that the great irony is that by and large the amount of training with the bayonet went up as its actual battlefield usefulness went down...

[fusilier]

If I’m reading the above posts correctly, then it would appear that the great irony is that by and large the amount of training with the bayonet went up as its actual battlefield usefulness went down...

That's probably true! But it's also a reflection of more complete and sophisticated training of soldiers. As tactics developed common soldiers had to act more independently. Skirmish drill was becoming more common for all troops, and not just elite light infantry units, for example. I believe by the 1850s French enlistedmen were even beginning to receive some classroom training. National service models were also being implemented, so large numbers of the population were being given some peacetime training. The old way of drafting huge levies for the first time during a war, meant that basic training was often very short, and things like bayonet drill were, understandably, neglected as low priority.

[DrewID]

It's a very good blog, but I think he focuses a bit too much in Britain when he studies European warfare. He skips the Tercios, the Landsknecht and the Swiss when he studies Warriors vs Soldiers, and I think these three are very important, being transitional between warrior and soldier mentality...

TBH, his whole Warriors vs. Soldiers series is by far the most opinionated piece he has done, and the most consistently out of his specialization (which is Classical Mediterranean). He is usually better when he focuses on presenting factual data, even if it is outside his specialty (like the recent steel making series), or presenting opinion pieces that are within his specialty (like the Sparta series).

DrewID

[Pauly]

If I’m reading the above posts correctly, then it would appear that the great irony is that by and large the amount of training with the bayonet went up as its actual battlefield usefulness went down...

All of the studies done about the effect of bayonet in battle have shown that very few casualties have ever been inflicted by the bayonet. The first studies I am aware of come from the Napoleonic era, so it may have been different with earlier technologies.
My books are in another country but iirc one study of casualty reports after famous bayonet charges found the percentage of casualties by bayonet wounds was in the single digit percentages. This is in well documented situations where the common report was that the bayonet was the deciding factor.

The bottom line take away is that the bayonet is primarily a psychological weapon. If you look like you can more confidently and more competently stick 18 inches of cold steel into your opponent than he is to you, he is more likely to run away. So while there is some combat value in training your soldiers being able to fight effectively with the bayonet, the main advantage is the morale effect (your soldiers are more likely to stay, the enemy more likely to run).

[KineticDiplomat]

As a follow up question to that, since we’ve gotten on to the topic of training, does anyone know the ratio of actual “skills training” to “other soldier stuff” at various points in history?

Within the same technological era? Since we have the bayonet in question, for instance a small professional army from the seven years war (or whenever you think is more approaches) vs the levee en masse for example?

Or out of era. Did a legionnaire practice with sword and shield daily, or was he more akin to a modern soldier who might fire far fewer rounds in a year than a shooting enthusiast?

[Tobtor]

As a follow up question to that, since we’ve gotten on to the topic of training, does anyone know the ratio of actual “skills training” to “other soldier stuff” at various points in history?

Within the same technological era? Since we have the bayonet in question, for instance a small professional army from the seven years war (or whenever you think is more approaches) vs the levee en masse for example?

Or out of era. Did a legionnaire practice with sword and shield daily, or was he more akin to a modern soldier who might fire far fewer rounds in a year than a shooting enthusiast?

I know most about dark age-medieval periods. Most training was done as "fun", that is games and sports. This seem to continue well into the post medieval era (at least until the late 18th/early 19th century). It seem many people would have been quite adept in several weapons, and some with a specialized skill (like bow, crossbow, sling, spear-throwing, staff use, fencing etc). That means you have a quite broad skill set of the individual. Sparing and mock fights where also a regular occurance (developed into tournaments etc. during the medieval period). Though "proper training" was also a thing for personal combat skills and even small group combat. Both for regular men-at-arms and mercenaries, but also for levies etc. (such as the English/Welsh rules that stipulates weekly training with the longbow, many other regions had similar laws).

What seem to be missing is specialized training in large scale manoeuvring/formations, which in large battles most be considered more important that the individual soldier. Mock battles was fought ("battle tournaments"), but I have seen no evidence of specialised training before the late medieval period (where it still seem fairly rare).

What I read about Roman military, it seem that combat training was conducted on a (nearly) daily basis (perhaps baring when doing battles/campaign), as well as regular formation training.

[Martin Greywolf]

All of the studies done about the effect of bayonet in battle have shown that very few casualties have ever been inflicted by the bayonet. The first studies I am aware of come from the Napoleonic era, so it may have been different with earlier technologies.
My books are in another country but iirc one study of casualty reports after famous bayonet charges found the percentage of casualties by bayonet wounds was in the single digit percentages. This is in well documented situations where the common report was that the bayonet was the deciding factor.

The bottom line take away is that the bayonet is primarily a psychological weapon. If you look like you can more confidently and more competently stick 18 inches of cold steel into your opponent than he is to you, he is more likely to run away. So while there is some combat value in training your soldiers being able to fight effectively with the bayonet, the main advantage is the morale effect (your soldiers are more likely to stay, the enemy more likely to run).

This is one of those things you need to pretty much ignore. Sure, there aren't many casualties - what is a casualty? Dead, injured, taken out of combat? And by this metric, modern guns are psychological weapons as well, since you expend a tremendous amounts of bullets (thousands) to injure one guy.

Even medieval melee weapons weren't that kill-y, a battle that had a 10% casualty rate was usually thought of as unusual, anything over 30% was a massacre - with some exceptions where the loosing force got either encircled or hunted down for days after the battle was over.

Or out of era. Did a legionnaire practice with sword and shield daily, or was he more akin to a modern soldier who might fire far fewer rounds in a year than a shooting enthusiast?

To answer this, we must first acknowledge a fundamental principle of writing things down: advice is not given if everyone follows it, laws are not written if everyone follows them. Therefore, when Vegetius writes De Re Militari and waxes poetic about how the ancients fought and trained daily, we can safely assume that this wasn't the norm in his time.

Similarly, when we look at medieval England and it's bow practicing laws, we can safely assume that they are written as a reaction to people not training enough for the king's liking. If we find a point in Landsknecht company rule about how you will be hella punished for cutting down your pike, we can assume this was something people did out of lazyness.

So, with that in mind, it was a lot like today. If you had a knight who was a tournament enthusiast (Ulrich von Lichtenstein) or aknight that was really into the science of fencing (Fiore de'i Liberi), they had much, much more training than your average knight or mercenary - they are the equivalent of the shooting enthusiast.

At the same time, not only are the non-enthusiasts motivated to get a solid amount of training (by, y'know, having to go and fight at some point, which is klinda dangerous), but the enthusiasts are involved in "the real thing", so you will not see much in the realm of medieval equivalent of range toys or techniques that are utterly impractical in the field.

If you're looking for exact numbers, we don't know.

I know most about dark age-medieval periods. Most training was done as "fun", that is games and sports. This seem to continue well into the post medieval era (at least until the late 18th/early 19th century). It seem many people would have been quite adept in several weapons, and some with a specialized skill (like bow, crossbow, sling, spear-throwing, staff use, fencing etc). That means you have a quite broad skill set of the individual. Sparing and mock fights where also a regular occurance (developed into tournaments etc. during the medieval period). Though "proper training" was also a thing for personal combat skills and even small group combat. Both for regular men-at-arms and mercenaries, but also for levies etc. (such as the English/Welsh rules that stipulates weekly training with the longbow, many other regions had similar laws).

What seem to be missing is specialized training in large scale manoeuvring/formations, which in large battles most be considered more important that the individual soldier. Mock battles was fought ("battle tournaments"), but I have seen no evidence of specialised training before the late medieval period (where it still seem fairly rare).

What I read about Roman military, it seem that combat training was conducted on a (nearly) daily basis (perhaps baring when doing battles/campaign), as well as regular formation training.

Well, the above is true for the nobility - although I'd hesitate to call a hunt a "fun" thing, sure, some enjoyed them, but it was also a sort of a social obligation, a part of your job as a noble, not the least because it prepared you for war, as several people in the period noted outright. It's also likely that, especially when it comes to ranged weapons, a given individual would pick one and stick with it, so bow or crossbow, really.

For non-nobles, which usually means some form of mercenaries, we have pretty much no data. We do have hints, though, and the most prominent of them is that one of these mercenaries, or rather their captain, was Fiore de'i Liberi, the guy who wrote the seminal work on melee fighting in 1400. The idea that he would not train his soldiers is... yeah, he absolutely trained them.

Problem is, these guys didn't have option to engage in a lot of things the nobles did, like tourneys, hunting and such, so they had to make do some other way. WHat other way, we don't know.

People are lazy, and often idiots

Remember this point and burn it into your heart. Sure, you're a mercenary and expected to fight, but meh, you will train tomorrow, you're just feeling kinda not like doing anything today.

Look into any industry that needs specialized training, and you will find it being cut down to reduce costs, not followed out of lazyness and so on, and we can be sure medieval era was no different. For every mercenary who dilligently trained and saved his silver to buy better armor eventually, you had five who loafed about and spent money on booze.

This is why organizations that enforced discipline were so successful and famous, be it the Roman army, Templars or Swiss pikemen.

[KineticDiplomat]

I had seen something by van Creveld that basically said (and any errors in the phrasing are mine) that the transition to the gunpowder era suddenly saw a mix where you had a lot more soldiers who were hasty productions, combined with all of a sudden gunpowder means training is no longer a two way affair (and much more expensive), and on top of all that you’re approaching a tactical era where being able to keep your pike pointed up or down on command is worth more than personal prowess.

That part sounds as good as anything I’d heard. Concerning bayonets within the same era, I have no idea...

[Clistenes]

As a follow up question to that, since we’ve gotten on to the topic of training, does anyone know the ratio of actual “skills training” to “other soldier stuff” at various points in history?

Within the same technological era? Since we have the bayonet in question, for instance a small professional army from the seven years war (or whenever you think is more approaches) vs the levee en masse for example?

Or out of era. Did a legionnaire practice with sword and shield daily, or was he more akin to a modern soldier who might fire far fewer rounds in a year than a shooting enthusiast?

During the Renaissance most armies expected recruits to arm and train themselves to some extent before joining the army, and then they were taught to fight as a group.

It varied greatly from country to country:

In the British Isles they still kept pretty much a feudal system.
Italy relied heavily on mercenary companies, using guild-based medieval militias when things turned ugly; powerful nobles kept their own feudal retinues too...
France had the gendarme companies as the core of their armies: Heavy horse companies made up of men-at-arms loyal to the king but organized pretty much following the model of mercenary companies. In time of war the army was strengthened with foreign mercenaries and feudal retinues.
Spain ditched feudal retinues pretty soon, leaving the defense of the Iberian Peninsula to them (the crown didn't expect it to be in any serious danger, so they sent the actual professional army abroad); the Tercios were a professional army organized around companies recruited and trained by a captain.

In most cases, it seems European governments expected the soldiers they were paying for to come trained on their own; they either came trained or were trained by the captains who recruited and led the unit.

Soldiers from the Tercios were expected to bring their own weapons and to have some basic training, but that wasn't always the case, and sergeants (usually veteran soldiers), ensigns and captains were tasked to find any inadequacies and start their training as soldiers (which wasn't quite sistematized, each sergeant, ensign and captain did whatever they felt like... some put quite an effort, some did barely anything...).
Some rich captains sought to give them better weapons; Alonso de Contreras, an alferez (ensign) at the time, stole a cache of weapons from a smuggler in order to arm his company, but the smuggler turned to be rebel conspiring against the crown and Contreras got into an ugly mess (because he didn't report the smuggler...

Afterwards the company was shipped to Italy, a low intensity combat scenario. Maestres the Campo (commanders of Tercios) usually broke the companies, mixing veterans and recruits so the recruits could complete their training on the field observing and taking advice from the veterans.

Once the soldiers were considered trained and toughened enough to operate in a high intensity scenario, they were shipped to Flanders... In Flanders they were joined by non-Spanish mercenary companies hired by the crown.

The Spanish veterans had a saying: "España, mi cuna, Italia, mi ventura, Flandes, mi sepultura" (Spain, my craddle, Italy, my joy, Flanders, my tomb...". Whatever they did in Italy, it didn't left them bad memories; it seems recruits were treated quite softly (young soldiers were rarely executed for showing cowardice there; it seems officers expected them to "toughen" gradually, rather than using the shock treatment of throwing them into a carnage). Flanders was the real deal; soldiers were expected to be fully trained professionals there, and discipline was draconian...

[Tobtor]

Well, the above is true for the nobility - although I'd hesitate to call a hunt a "fun" thing, sure, some enjoyed them, but it was also a sort of a social obligation, a part of your job as a noble, not the least because it prepared you for war, as several people in the period noted outright. It's also likely that, especially when it comes to ranged weapons, a given individual would pick one and stick with it, so bow or crossbow, really.

I am not only talking about nobles. Games that involved weapons where fairly common. There are many examples of for instance crossbow shooting contests practised by "middle class" people (citizens in towns, free farmer etc) in the late medieval periods. In earlier texts such as the Icelandic Sagas (written in the 12-14th century) we also hear about bow shooting contest, training fights, swimming contests and al sorts of "martial" activities practices by farmers.

Various games in Denmark stems from semi-martial training. For instance every year at lent there today children take turn to hit a barrel with a club until et breaks. The winner is the one who smashes it. In the 18th century it was done on horseback and done by young men - the winner (and any household he lived in) in each parish would be exempt for certain taxes for 1 year. This would intice people to train riding skill as well as "swinging while you rigt" skills.

People are lazy, and often idiots

I completely agree. Whenever we see a text about training or any manual it specify how the people higher up would like it to be (within reason). So surely we should take any texts as a "high point", and deduce that the average is lower.

[Martin Greywolf]

I am not only talking about nobles. Games that involved weapons where fairly common. There are many examples of for instance crossbow shooting contests practised by "middle class" people (citizens in towns, free farmer etc) in the late medieval periods. In earlier texts such as the Icelandic Sagas (written in the 12-14th century) we also hear about bow shooting contest, training fights, swimming contests and al sorts of "martial" activities practices by farmers.

First issue I have with this is defining what is a martial activity - swimming is not it. Sure, it can occassionally help you and it builds stamina, but so does running or just walking, so we're putting the definitions far too broad here.

As for the contests themselves, they were not very high level. Your bottom rung modern amateur BJJ gym probably has a much higher quality of wrestling that your annual village tournament, simply because the pool of possible participants is very low, and the pool of willing participants even lower. If you are a mildly talented at the given sport, you will have practically no incentive to get better - there are no big leagues to get into, really - and the bar is low.

We should look at these activities the way we look at today's football/soccer - sure, every village has a team, but that doesn't mean the entire village male population is at the skill level of said team, and the team itself is far, far below the professional players. It's a recreational activity more than anything else, and any serious footballer/soldier would wipe the floor with them - well, with the usual caveat for wrestling specifically of size mattering.

That said, this activity does have the potential to evolve into something useful, whether by enforcing training by law (archery) or by introducing higher leagues with higher prizes (wrestling, boxing). Once you have either of those, then you get people with martial skills at a higher level than usual. The issue is finding these cases, and for most of the medieval world, they are closed to the non-noble public.

There are some exceptions, e.g. English archery and German burghers developing a decidedly martial mindset, but hey are just that, exceptions.

Various games in Denmark stems from semi-martial training. For instance every year at lent there today children take turn to hit a barrel with a club until et breaks. The winner is the one who smashes it. In the 18th century it was done on horseback and done by young men - the winner (and any household he lived in) in each parish would be exempt for certain taxes for 1 year. This would intice people to train riding skill as well as "swinging while you rigt" skills.

I don't know enough about Denmark to call this, but be very sceptical about statements like these unless backed by some serious facts and original documents. 17th-19th centuries are especially suspect, because everyone and their mother was trying to come up with some nationalistic martial spin to make their country look biggest and baddest, and a lot of idiocy resulted from it, like the idea that sabres are inferion to straight swords, that sabres are superior to straight swords, that sabres were brought to Europe by the Ottomans and so on.

[Zombimode]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKbOj3i0rQ8&t=380s

I don't know, I find videos like this to be pretty much without any value for learning something about the use and comparison of historic weapons.

The environment of these "fencing" style match up are just so artifical. There are usually three problems, all of the present in this video:

1. The fencers are religiously fixated on their weapon instead of winning an actual fight. They are not using their hands, they are not using their bodies.

2. They are bound by the artifical scoring system where even a weak tip with the weapon counts as a "hit". This creates its very own metagame and results in the very cautious distance fighting we see in the video. It disregards any effects of armor or technique of deflecting the opponents weapon even unarmored.

3. They are not using the "real" weapon but some fencing props. These might resemble the weapons in some respects but not in all. The ability to damage the opponents weapon for instance is not accounted for at all.

[Mike_G]

I don't know, I find videos like this to be pretty much without any value for learning something about the use and comparison of historic weapons.

The environment of these "fencing" style match up are just so artifical. There are usually three problems, all of the present in this video:

1. The fencers are religiously fixated on their weapon instead of winning an actual fight. They are not using their hands, they are not using their bodies.

2. They are bound by the artifical scoring system where even a weak tip with the weapon counts as a "hit". This creates its very own metagame and results in the very cautious distance fighting we see in the video. It disregards any effects of armor or technique of deflecting the opponents weapon even unarmored.

3. They are not using the "real" weapon but some fencing props. These might resemble the weapons in some respects but not in all. The ability to damage the opponents weapon for instance is not accounted for at all.

So what do you propose as a valuable way to learn something about a weapon?

I merely ask as a former infantry Marine with 30 years of fencing. I'm sure if you speak slowly enough and use small words I'll be able to understand

And I'm not sure what you watched, but there are a lot of instances of the guy with the sword grabbing the barrel of the musket , so nobody is "religiously fixated on their weapons."

[Pauly]

This is one of those things you need to pretty much ignore. Sure, there aren't many casualties - what is a casualty? Dead, injured, taken out of combat? And by this metric, modern guns are psychological weapons as well, since you expend a tremendous amounts of bullets (thousands) to injure one guy.

Even medieval melee weapons weren't that kill-y, a battle that had a 10% casualty rate was usually thought of as unusual, anything over 30% was a massacre - with some exceptions where the loosing force got either encircled or hunted down for days after the battle was over.

Just to be clear the studies I have seen refer to returns of wounds, not MIA, captured, ill etc. In bayonet charges the number of wounds inflicted by shooting exceeds wounds inflicted by bayonets by an order of magnitude. Again I don’t have my books with me so I can’t give you the references, but the studies isolated casualties as best they could to exclude casualties from the battle as a whole and to isolate the casualties from the bayonet charge.

[Martin Greywolf]

I don't know, I find videos like this to be pretty much without any value for learning something about the use and comparison of historic weapons.

The environment of these "fencing" style match up are just so artifical. There are usually three problems, all of the present in this video:

1. The fencers are religiously fixated on their weapon instead of winning an actual fight. They are not using their hands, they are not using their bodies.

2. They are bound by the artifical scoring system where even a weak tip with the weapon counts as a "hit". This creates its very own metagame and results in the very cautious distance fighting we see in the video. It disregards any effects of armor or technique of deflecting the opponents weapon even unarmored.

3. They are not using the "real" weapon but some fencing props. These might resemble the weapons in some respects but not in all. The ability to damage the opponents weapon for instance is not accounted for at all.

Look, we've seen your kind before. The crowd that claims that HEMA is useless because they aren't killing themselves with real weapons and therefore aren't real viking warriors doing real things and your particular fantasy fighting style than never went up against any properly resisting opponent is superior to theirs because it is more real.

The people you're taking potshots at are one of the most respected practitonars of martial arts of that period, having both practical and academical knowledge to back up what they do - unless they are doing some goofy thing, which is not the case in this video.

Just to be clear the studies I have seen refer to returns of wounds, not MIA, captured, ill etc. In bayonet charges the number of wounds inflicted by shooting exceeds wounds inflicted by bayonets by an order of magnitude. Again I don’t have my books with me so I can’t give you the references, but the studies isolated casualties as best they could to exclude casualties from the battle as a whole and to isolate the casualties from the bayonet charge.

And that's not really a good way to asses the effecto fo bayonet as a weapon or to call it psychological - a charge with any other weapon would have similar result, because it's not the bayonet that is psychological, it's the charge. Another factor that makes bayonet seem a lot less effective is that, well, in a melee fight, your opponent can surrender a lot easier. A better study for the effectiveness of a bayonet would probably be something like looking at bayonets storming an encircled mildly fortified position, and looking at how many were killed by gunfire versus how many wounded, killed or surrendered during battle thanks to bayonets - but even that is flawed, since guns are at a disadvantage when taking potshots at a fortified position.